Posted on 07/14/2004 9:50:28 AM PDT by 11th Earl of Mar
Edited on 07/14/2004 10:13:18 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON - The Senate dealt an election-year defeat Wednesday to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, rejecting pleas from President Bush (news - web sites) and fellow conservatives that the measure was needed to safeguard an institution that has flourished for thousands of years.
The vote was 48-50, 12 short of the 60 needed to keep the measure alive.
"I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance," said Sen. Rick Santorum, a leader in the fight to approve the measure. "Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?"
But Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle said there was no "urgent need" to amend the Constitution. "Marriage is a sacred union between men and women. That is what the vast majority of Americans believe. It's what virtually all South Dakotans believe. It's what I believe."
"In South Dakota, we've never had a single same sex marriage and we won't have any," he said. "It's prohibited by South Dakota law as it is now in 38 other states. There is no confusion. There is no ambiguity."
Supporters conceded in advance they would fail to win the support needed to advance the measure, and vowed to renew their efforts.
"I don't think it's going away after this vote," Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Tuesday on the eve of the test vote. "I think the issue will remain alive," he added.
Whatever its future in Congress, there also were signs that supporters of the amendment intended to use it in the campaign already unfolding.
"The institution of marriage is under fire from extremist groups in Washington, politicians, even judges who have made it clear that they are willing to run over any state law defining marriage," Republican senatorial candidate John Thune says in a radio commercial airing in South Dakota. "They have done it in Massachusetts and they can do it here," adds Thune, who is challenging Daschle for his seat.
"Thune's ad suggests that some are using this amendment more to protect the Republican majority than to protect marriage," said Dan Pfeiffer, a spokesman for Daschle's campaign.
At issue was an amendment providing that marriage within the United States "shall consist only of a man and a woman."
A second sentence said that neither the federal nor any state constitution "shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman." Some critics argue that the effect of that provision would be to ban civil unions, and its inclusion in the amendment complicated efforts by GOP leaders to gain support from wavering Republicans.
Bush urged the Republican-controlled Congress last February to approve a constitutional amendment, saying it was needed to stop judges from changing the definition of the "most enduring human institution."
Bush's fall rival, Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) of Massachusetts, opposes the amendment, as does his vice presidential running mate, Sen. John Edwards (news - web sites) of North Carolina. Both men skipped the vote.
The odds have never favored passage in the current Congress, in part because many Democrats oppose it, but also because numerous conservatives are hesitant to overrule state prerogatives on the issue.
At the same time, Republican strategists contend the issue could present a difficult political choice to Democrats, who could be pulled in one direction by polls showing that a majority of voters oppose gay marriage, and pulled in the other by homosexual voters and social liberals who support it. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken in March showed about four in 10 support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and half oppose it.
Democrats said that Bush and Republicans were using the issue to distract attention from the war in Iraq (news - web sites) and the economy.
"The issue is not ripe. It is not needed. It's a waste of our time. We should be dealing with other issues," said Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut.
But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court had thrust the matter upon the Senate. The ruling opened the way for same sex marriages in the state, and Frist predicted the impact would eventually be far broader.
"Same-sex marriage will be exported to all 50 states. The question is no longer whether the Constitution will be amended. The only question is who will amend it and how will it be amended," he added.
He said the choice was "activist judges" on the one hand and lawmakers on the other.
The will of the majority has already been rejected. That's the point. The Massachusetts ruling demolished the reasoning that marriage is based on what the majority wants.
A majority of Americans abhor same-sex unions, yet the courts found their opinion moot. A person therefore cannot appeal to “what the people want” in arguing against polygamy.
It no longer matters how many individuals advocate polygamy (though it is more than just a few; there are an estimated 20,000 - 30,000 practicing non-legal plural marriage in Utah alone). What matters is the soundness of their argument presented in court.
Using the precedent made in Lawrence v. Texas, polygamists have the upper hand in the debate. Their argument will be even more unstoppable, if the Supreme Court upholds the Massachusetts gay marriage ruling. That ruling, incidentally, citing Lawrence v. Texas as the basis.
The only way to prevent them from succeeding is the Federal Marriage Amendment. That is why polygamists opposed it.
You've alluded to what I think most conservatives here don't get about this debate. They look around them, and they see only heterosexuals (they think) in their town, their workplace, their neighborhood, or their church. It's easy to get caught up in thinking that the rest of the world is pretty much like the people you know.
Out there in the cities, or in suburbia, a lot of people, liberal, conservative, and mushy middle, know gay people. Sure, they've seen the swishy drag queens, but they also know Henry down in accounting, who wonders whether the boss will freak if he brings a "guest" to the company picnic. They know they've never faced a problem bring their opposite sex spouses and dates to the picnic, so they feel a twinge of understanding with Henry.
Now, many of those people would not come to Henry's wedding, and might very well feel uncomfortable if Henry invited them, but if Henry wants to do this someday, they have a problem with amending the Constitution so that it can never happen. They know that someday, a lot of people are going to know a Henry, and it won't be such a big deal. So while they know that a lot of their friends, neighbors, and family are not ready for Henry, someday it might not be the case, and they really don't want an FMA to have to take down.
Besides, even if Henry makes them uncomfortable, the whole Amendment thing seems a bit mean spirited.
yup.
I agree.
Any states in the US where that is the case (parental consent notwithstanding)? Perhaps that is where we need to shore up marriage. We live in an age where we expect girls to finish high school. Maybe disallowing teen shotgun weddings will improve the divorce rate.
Compliment
If this is a state issue, each will need to re-define which states they will recognize as valid. What may be true for Maine may not be true for Missouri.
Legislating social standards is a proper function of government, and the Constitution is the most logical platform by which a national norm - recognized by all states - is established. This bill needs to be reconsidered by this Congress.
It is the best Bush re-election strategy on the table, because it's in keeping with the Word of God.
So, I suppose if you knew any polygamists, you would be apt to argue for their right to marry?
I know a young woman whose mother left her step-father for a "plural marriage." (This step-father, ironically, advocated polygamy.) Soon after, this girl "married" a man who seemed to be already married. She now seems to be in hiding, and I haven't seen her for years. I did see her mother on TV, though, on a story about polygamy about two years ago.
So long as you have never met any polygamists, as you are aware, you think it's not an issue. It's easy for you to be in denial that it exists. I can't enjoy such blissful ignorance, since I know we aren’t talking about some theoretical practice. The reality is there is no barrier to legalizing this form of marriage, particularly since it is believed in and practiced so strongly by its advocates.
#####the whole Amendment thing seems a bit mean spirited.#####
As opposed to arrogant, power mad judges telling the voters to go to hell. That's much nicer.
Why don't we just go ahead and scrap the Constitution, cancel future elections, and announce that from now on Margaret Marshall will rule the country as she sees fit. And don't anyone dare to disagree with her. It might appear mean spirited.
If you're referring to the FMA, all the surveys I've seen indicated an unwillingness to amend the Constitution that correspond roughly to today's actual vote. It doesn't necessarily mean acceptance of gay marriage, there will be some tests this fall of that.
The Massachusetts ruling demolished the reasoning that marriage is based on what the majority wants.
Did the MA SJC turn things on their head? Perhaps, I really believed that it surprised even the gay rights people. If it had not occurred, we would not have seen the rouge marriage licenses in SF, Portland, New Paltz, etc. Those incidents may well have been overreaching by the gay rights side. It seemed to me that their strategy was to get civil union or domestic partnership in as many places as possible, then use a "separate but unequal" argument in the courts. Gay marriage advocates are quite full of themselves right now, and anything they can use as a "victory" will keep them giddy. I think Senator Frist's vote just provided such an opportunity.
A majority of Americans abhor same-sex unions, yet the courts found their opinion moot.
Of course, it depends on where you ask the question, but most surveys I've seen are about 30% in favor of full gay marriage, 40% dead set against anything, and a mushy middle of about 30% either in favor of civil unions, or not really caring about the issue. That 30% is what both of the other sides are fighting over, and by no means is the 40% going to win them all over, in the long run.
What matters is the soundness of their argument presented in court.
It would take a LOT to convince a Utah appeals court of the application of Lawrence vs. Texas to the condition of polygamy. Every Mormon I've ever known has been paranoid about discussing it, they're sick and tired of all the jokes. Surely, LDS-approved appeals justices in Utah will strike this "reasoning" down. This lawyer picked too hard a target. He might have had better luck in Maine!
That is why polygamists opposed it.
The polygamists are a tiny fringe group that really does want to radically redefine marriage in America, and they will cling to anything that they see gives them legitimacy. Find me a so-called "Biblical" polygamist who really thinks that Leviticus and Paul are all wet on homosexuality, and I'll find you the biggest hypocrite in the country!
The destruction of moral absolutes epitomized by the destruction of marriage will, without any doubt, destroy western civilization. What are we going to do to stop this destruction?
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
Thanks, and its been good to have a rousing discussion with you! Conservatives have not really lost that much today, I'm going to use my two Senatress' votes to convince my wife's family that the Rat party does NOT believe in the things they hold dear. They're always bashing Republicans for being for the rich, I'd like to bounce gay marriage off their thick skulls!
Evidently this lying sack of excrement didn't take my correspondence to heart. No surprise there.
Judicial tyranny has dictated homosexual marriage. It is a fait accompli. The staes rights idiots are FOS or just plain stupid.
any particular reason or are you just a homo?
I hope you're right Swampfox, but my guess is that Justice Kennedy's expansive use of language in the Texas sodomy ruling was his way of telling the legal community that the fix is in on gay "marriage" at the Supreme Court.
Sorry Mr Marion but you are dreaming. SCOTUS will spread this plague through equal protection. The new "marriage paradigm" is a fait accompli.
Where do you get 35 million homosexuals? At roughly 2% of the population, and the population around 280 million, (last I looked), so that would make it about 5.6 million.
....a charter of the citizens's protection against the government.....
We need this amendment to protect us from Government forcing gay marriage on the majority who oppose it.
get it now? or do you approve of forced beliefs?
Your numbers are simply ridiculous. Over 50 % of Massachusetts residents oppose homosexual marriage. Nothing mushy about it. The next most liberal state in the union, Hawaii, overwhelmingly passed an amendement banning same. You can't simply pick numbers out of the air and represent them as given from the mount.
Only if I felt some sort of empathy for them. The only polygamists that I've even heard of (thanks to the Internet) are those who use a twisted reading of the Bible to justify one man keeping a flock of subservient women as his personal harem. I'd have extreme difficulty finding such people sympathetic.
On the other hand, if I knew of a multiple arrangement where the people involved were otherwise seemingly intelligent, and really were operating out of free will, I might be open minded enough to accept them as friends. It might just be out of curiousity to see if they really were all OK with the arrangement, I just can't see how it might work in a practical manner! But I sure wouldn't expect the vast majority of people (including my wife) to feel OK with them, women always associate something like that with some evil intent on a man's part.
Now if it were two men and one woman....Not exactly sure how Mrs. hunter112 would feel about it, but it would weird her out, big time!
So long as you have never met any polygamists, as you are aware, you think it's not an issue. It's easy for you to be in denial that it exists. I can't enjoy such blissful ignorance, since I know we aren’t talking about some theoretical practice.
I'm not in denial about its existence, I just don't think that it's prevalent. As men and women become more equal, in socialization and education, I can only see the practice dying off. I think a woman has to be pretty sufficiently damaged to run off and hide herself with a man and a group of "sister wives". I would imagine that anyone who could be lured into prostitution could be entrapped in a plural marriage scheme.
The fact remains, polygamy is no more socially acceptable now than it has ever been, unless you want to cite the "hippy commune" period of the 60's and 70's. There are deep reasons that people have to be someone else's one and only.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.